IN RANDOM VIEWS of a city-bred and a promdi.

The article below is from PDI Oct 30, 2006 and posted in Friendster Bulletin by my cousin Baby-Girl Fernando… 

Baby though you didn’t say anything why you posted this article, I assume you are upset and sad about this consequence.

And if it is alright with you, may I share my opinion, regardless that
you disagree.  I think it would be better if you retake the board
exam.  Actually I think it would be better if there is a total retake
of passers.  And I now that many of you did not cheat.  I know you did
not cheat.  However the system was tainted… and as a consquence, even
if some takers like you did not cheat, once you participate in a system
that was tainted, you will come out tainted as well.

Sobrang I felt for you when I heard from my mom that you were crying
due to the delays and the "almost no-oath-taking and total retake
decision of the CA."  I had a sigh of relief too that the oath-taking
pushed through, because I know a great deal of anxiety was taken over
your shoulders.  However, you must learn to deal with the
consequences.  One of my assumptions when the court decides in your
favor, is that many of you who passed the board exam and will take your
oath will be attached to the stigma that you are a participant of the
tainted 2006 nursing board exam.  People will be strict in hiring you.
"Teka muna, tatanggapin ba natin agad yan e taker yan sa year na may
cheating sa Pilipinas," baka sabhin pa ito ng isang agency na kahit
kapwa Pilipino mo pa ang may ari.

I know you did not cheat, but if I were in your position I will take it
again, only to remove the stain that I participated in a system that
was tainted.  I know that my position will be strongly opposed by many,
but to those who did not cheat will still be in the losing end because
regardless you have no fault in this, nadamay parin kayo dahil nga
kasama kayo sa sistema na pandaraya.  Many say that the burden of
preparing for the exam was so stressful, that no money or price can
compensate it.  However being a nurse is stressful itself, and
everything about being a nurse and the process of becoming a nurse
graduate is alread stressful, I don’t think preparing for a few months
for the exam would be any different.

And naisip ko rin, may makakalusot parin na taker na cheater — na
sumama sa oath.  It is not impossible that a taker from the most remote
area could have access to the leak, considering the technology we have
now.  A cheater in Baguio could simply scan the kodigo, then fax or
email it to friends.. then these friends will send it to their
friends.. and another set of friends and another and another.  All I
mean is –  it is not impossible for a test-taker to have access to it
even if they do not belong to the areas identified by the CA who need
to retake it.  –  this is the very reason  why the US tightens screening of 2006 nursing board.

Also, when the nursing
leak was fresh on the pages,  my initial reaction was - "Naku, patay
ang mga pasyente" — why? Because the nursing board exam determines if
the nursing graduate is capable of practicing as a nurse, of practicing
the profession which deals to the very lives and health of people.
What if an extraneous taker (who had low grades, poor training, from
one of the lowest standard nursing schools) passed not because of his
ability but because he cheated, — would you allow your sick mother,
sister, grandfather, or child to be taken care of such nurse passer?
Ako personally ayaw ko, dahil gusto ko yung nurse, competent.  And the
board exam determines your competency, pero mahirap na kahit pumasa ka
pa because of your ability, kasi may duda sa iyo ang mga agencies at
mga screening chuva eklats na maghuhusga kung tatanggapin ka ba o hindi.

Pero kung ano man ang desisyon mo, suportahan ka namin, at we will pray
that you won’t be prejudiced through the grace of God. :0) Wala namang
imposible sa pananampalataya.

====================================
US tightens screening of 2006 nursing board passers

By Christian V. Esguerra
Inquirer
Last updated 08:53pm (Mla time) 10/30/2006

DOES the stigma attached to the country’s latest
batch of nurses remain?

An American organization that determines the
eligibility of foreign-trained nurses to work in the
United States is not about to accept - just yet -
applicants from among the passers of the tainted
June 2006 nursing licensure exams.

In a statement posted at its website, the
Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing
Schools (CGFNS) said it was still
reviewing "whether the licensure process followed
in light of the challenged results of the June 2006
exam is comparable with that required for
nurses licensed in America, as required by U.S.
law."

After the evaluation, the CGFNS said it would
determine "in the near future" whether the June
batch applicants were eligible for VisaScreen
certification.

VisaScreen refers to the program offered by the
CGFNS’ International Commission on Healthcare
Professions that helps foreign health care
professionals qualify for certain occupational visas.
It does so by "verifying and evaluating their
credentials to ensure that they meet the
government’s minimum eligibility standards."

"Any VisaScreen applications that CGFNS
receives from June 2006 passers will be accepted
but deferred for a final decision until this
assessment process is complete," the CGFNS
said in the statement.

"If the assessment concludes that the license is
not comparable, the VisaScreen application from a
June 2006 passer will be denied."

Professor Zenaida Famorca of the University of
Santo Tomas’ College of Nursing said Monday this
was the first time that the CGFNS came up with
such a condition for Filipino nurses.

"We never had this in the past, especially since
our nursing education system in the Philippines is
very similar to that in the US," she told the Inquirer.

The CGFNS provides the certification exam usually
required by many American states before foreign
nurses could take the National Council Licensure
Examination (NCLEX) administered by the National
Council of State Boards of Nursing.

The CGFNS said it arrived at its decision on the
June passers following a meeting of its board of
trustees last October 22 and 23.

The agenda was "whether Philippine nurses who
have passed the Professional Regulation
Commission’s June 2006 nursing licensing exam
are eligible for VisaScreen certification."

"This is precisely the kind of reaction from would-
be employers that we worked so hard to prevent,"
said Famorca whose college — along with
representatives of the University of the Philippines,
University of the East, and the Far Eastern
University — favored a total
retake.

Considering the circumstances, she said it was
ironic that those who actually flunked in the June
exams were luckier since they weren’t among the
applicants being watched by the CGFNS.

"Lucky for them, they don’t have the stigma
because they’re not part of the batch in question,"
she said.

A nursing graduate of a Quezon City school who
landed in the June exams’ top ten said she was
not surprised with the CGFNS decision.

"Just as I expected, after all this, our application
for the US remained blocked because of this
controversy," she said.

The newly-licensed nurse blamed the Court of
Appeals for deciding against an unconditional
retake for all examinees "as if no leakage had
happened."

"We really can’t pretend that no leakage
happened," she said. "We didn’t do anything about
it on our own so now, the US is going to do
something about it. If we had all taken the exams
again months ago, this would have been a non-
issue now."

Last week, the appellate court gave the go-signal
for the oath-taking of 17,000 June passers,
following a five-hour conciliation talk with different
stakeholders.

Among them were representatives from the PRC,
Board of Nursing, Office of the Solicitor General,
and some petitioners who had asked the CA to
reconsider its Oct. 13 decision for a selective
retake.

In the decision, the CA said only the 1,687
examinees, whose names were added in the list of
passers after a recomputation of tests scores,
were to take Tests III and V again.

Copyright 2006 Inquirer. All rights reserved. This
material may not be published, broadcast,
rewritten or redistributed.